Ironically,
Icelandic leaders like David Oddsson were probably victims of
their initial success in applying "libertarian" policies
towards their own country.On
a deep sociological level, there are perfectly legitimate reasons
for Icelanders to promote various forms of libertarianism for
their own kind, since their innate Nordic character traits
fulfill so many libertarian preconditions. Libertarianism generally
assumes that most people are sufficiently honest, rational,
entrepreneurial, and intelligent to make up a viable decentralized
economic and political system. It also very important that the
majority of the population possess many other character traits,
such as chivalrousness, individualism, industriousness, respect
for private property rights, and a highly altruistic capacity
for responsible citizenship. In
other words, the general citizenry must have an innate tendancy
to act in the exact opposite manner than the very negative
way in which the Protocols
of the Learned Elders of Zion characterizes gentiles.
Although The Protocols were written
by the Zionist Asher Ginsberg in the 19th century, they
reflect a very negative view of gentiles still held by Zionists
like George Soros, the leaders of Goldman Sachs, the Rothschilds
of the City of London, Mossad-CIA, and other actors. These negative
views can become a self-fulfilling prophecy as these entities
infiltrate, corrupt, loot, race-mix, and otherwise destabilize
societies like Iceland. The Protocol I section "What
We Believe" states:

People
are basically evil by nature. The bad people in this world
far outnumber the good. So the best form of government is
not one that holds reasoned discussions with its people, but
one that uses tyranny.Most
people would gladly become an all-powerful dictator and sacrifice
the well-being of others for their own benefit.

As
I discuss in my online environmental
vs. genetics article, the Nordic peoples have been shaped
by tens if not hundreds of thousands of years under dispersed
conditions in hard, cold environments. They generally lived
on family farms or in small fishing villages in homogeneous,
tribal societies. This environment favored rational innovation,
delayed gratification, and individual self-sufficiency for survival.
Relative to most other societies throughout history, Nordic
societies have always been characterized by having relatively
large middle classes of land-owning, armed free men. They have
always experienced a high degree of political decentralization
where common values, to include a strong sense of personal honor,
were reinforced at the grass roots by a common folk culture.
Please
refer to Appendix
I of Part
6, which provides an extract from Chapter
One of Racial
Realities in Europe by Dr. Lothrop Stoddard.
He provides important additional background on the character
and history of Nordic peoples.

One of the great Nordic heroes of ancient times was
Arminius,
also known as "Hermann the Cherusci," back when Germany
was a majority Nordic territory. His tribesmen handed imperial
Rome its greatest military defeat in 9 A.D., and saved Germany
and Scandinavia from getting taken over and corrupted by the
Latinized version of "New World Order" despotism of
their era. (See "Hermann
(Arminius): The Liberator of Europe" by By Merlin Miller,
The Barnes Review, Nov 26, 2009). There is a statue
to Hermann in New
Ulm, Minnesota, USA, a copy of an original statue at the
Teutoberg
forest site in Germany where Herman's fellow heroes completely
annihilated
three Roman legions. According to the Roman
writer Tacitus, German women would sometimes follow behind their
men as they headed towards battle, urging them on by saying
words to the effect, "If you do not defeat the Romans,
we will be sold in their slave markets." Today, the global
financial operations of George Soros, Goldman Sachs, the City
of London, Mossad-CIA and other aggressors against countries
like Iceland, Greece, and Ukraine threatens a new form of slavery
through high level international loan sharking.

All
of this contrasts sharply with the multi-racial, Asiatic-despotic,
pyramidal social structures that have shaped Jews for thousands
of years in places like ancient Babylonia, Egypt, Persia, parts
of the Roman Empire, and other exotic urban areas where gangs
of monopolists ruled through fear, black magic, and other deceptions
in order to enforce collectivism on the slave-masses below them.Neither
bank debt slavery nor white slavery are foreign to the Jewish
experience. According to many Roman writers, Jews dominated the
slave trade in the Roman Empire. Jewish slavers were also quite
active in the Middle Ages. According to Dr. Matthew Raphael
Johnson (see Chapter
32, also his web site at rusjournal.com),
Jews ran slaving expeditions from their positions within the Ottoman
Empire that sought to drain the Ukraine of its most beautiful
Nordic-Mediterranean women. The Cossacks, who viewed themselves
as Christian knights, provided their only effective opposition.
Whenever they liberated Ukrainian women who were being hauled
away in slave caravans, they typically killed every Jewish slave
dealer they could get their hands on. Today, Israel is the leader
of white
slavery in the Middle East, not to mention the trade
in stolen body parts of kidnapped Palestinians. There
is now strong evidence that Jews have a strong Neanderthal strain
in their genetic make-up, and therefore reflect an implaccable
hatred of Cro-Magnon Man that simply continues "by other
means" a 20,000+ year long prehistoric race war between Cro-Magnons
and Neanderthals for control of Europe. Please refer to articles
listed in the Table
of Contents of the May/June 2010 special issue of The
Barnes Review, to include "Revenge
of the Neanderthal" by Willis Carto and "Parting
Thoughts: The Eternal Conflict" by the Greek
nationalist George Kadar. In
Appendix
VI to Part
6, titled "The Revenge of the Neanderthal, Ethnic-Genetic
Distance, and the Neanderthal-Troll Connection," I provide
additional scientific evidence of vast "genetic distance"
between white gentiles like Icelanders and self-Chosen kosher
heirs of the Neanderthal legacy. Last,
but not least, there are serious anthropologists who believe that
Troll mythology may have originated from lingering pockets of
Neanderthals scattered about Europe. Therefore, we can see an
interesting chain of logic come into view. If the primary malefactors
who led Iceland to ruin were Jews, who in turn are heavily descended
from Neanderthals, who in turn inspired Troll-related folklore,
then it is possible to suggest with a straight face that modern
Iceland has been victimized by a high level Troll attack.

Articles listed in the
Table of Contents establish a "Jewish-Neanderthal relationship,"
but is there a "Troll connection" as well?

One of many Jewish-Neanderthal facial similarities noted in
the article "Revenge
of the Neanderthal" by Willis Carto, Barnes Review,
May/June 2010.

Thomas
Jefferson once condemned the "wretched
depravity" of Jewish morals. The Jewish Talmud calls
gentiles goyim or "cattle" and condones myriad
perversions, to include sex with underage girls. The Zohar,
another important Jewish writing, advocates black magic. In
other words, rather than reject the values of sleazy Middle Eastern
fleshpot civilizations, many Jews have embraced
them. Through elite Jews like George Soros and his confederates,
they try to import them into the Nordic societies. They also seek
to enslave countries like Iceland through economic destabilization
and usurious lending activities.Little
wonder then, as I note in my "Handling Real Nazis" section
in Chapter
34, of my Mission of Conscience Trilogy, that wise
Norwegian leaders specifically wrote in their Constitution
of 1814 at Eidsvoll to keep Jews as well as Jesuits out of
their Nordic society.

Above: As Michael Collins Piper documents in Final
Judgment, The
New Jerusalem, and The
New Babylon, Zionists are global leaders in organized
crime activity around the world, to include white
slavery,organ
trafficking, and the global drug trade. During the Vietnam
War era, Mossad-CIA controlled the Golden Triangle. Now they
have made Afghanistan the main
global producer of opium. The David Dees satire below
titled "passing the ball" depicts American troops
who guard opium fields. Ironically, these field were put out
of business under Taliban rule. After Bush was replaced by
Obama, whose presidential campaign was heavily financed by
Goldman Sachs and other Zionists, America's Middle Eastern
and Central Asian policy continued to be "business as
usual."

Below: "Reply
of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to Sultan Mehmed IV of Turkey"
by Ilya Repin (1880-1891). Wikipedia claims that the defiant
letter depicted in the painting may be literary in origin.
Nevertheless, in real life Cossacks were in fact fiercely
independent. According to Dr. Mathew Raphael Johnson, they
fought for the right of peasants to avoid serfdom. They also
provided a bulwark against despotic threats from the south,
to the Mongol
and Tatar States of Europe, and Jewish-run slaving expeditions
from the Ottomon Empire which also stole Ukrainian and other
European women. Cossacks often served as an eastern analogue
to the aforementioned Hermann and his fellow tribesmen.

The
first settlers to Iceland came from Norway in the 9th century
A.D. The society created by these Norsemen was probably the
closest that any society has ever come in human history towards
fulfilling libertarian ideals on a sustainable basis. See for
example the article " Medieval
Iceland and the Absence of Government" by
Thomas Whiston, Mises Daily, 25 Dec 2002, which claims
there was no public property in early Iceland. The
Althing created by Norsemen at Thingvellir
(Parliament Plains) survived for centuries as one of the most
enduring examples of republican government in Western history.
Such "Things" were part of a broader pattern in Scandinavia.
Parliamentary systems were common wherever Nordic peoples predominated
in ancient or medieval times. Examples included governments
in ancient Greece and Roman (prior to the rise of the Hellenistic
and Roman Empires), the cortes created by Visigoths
in Spain, parliaments created by Anglo Saxons in Britain, the
republic created by Helvetians
in Switzerland, city state republics created by Nordic Lombards
in northern Italy, and the Novgorod and Kievan republics created
by the Scandinavian Viking "Rus" who gave "Russia"
its name. Icelanders
refer to themselves as a Nordic people, but the underlying genetic
reality may actually be more complicated. "The Origins
of the Icelanders" by the Sigurður Nordal Institute,
notes:

The
first results to come out of the research, which is being
done by DeCode in collaboration with the University of Oxford,
indicate that 63% of Icelandic female settlers were of Celtic
origin and had ancestral lines traceable to the British Isles.
On the other hand, only about 37% of them were of Nordic origins.
However, the research into male Y-chromosomes (inherited via
the male line) revealed that a much greater percentage of
male settlers were of Nordic origins, or 80%, and 20% have
origins which can be traced to the British Isles.

Regardless
of its exact makeup, there seems to be an urge towards decentralization,
chivalrous behavior, and rugged individualism in the DNA of
societies with majority Nordic demographics.Many
Americans have been brainwashed by Jewish Hollywood to confuse
"Nordic" with "Nazi," particularly since
Hitler admired Nordic peoples. This such an important issue
that I need to digress for a moment to explain the relationship
between "Nordic" and such historical entities as the
Third Reich, Roman Empire, and Roman Republic. According
to Dr. Lothrop Stoddard's Racial
Realities in Europe, Germany transitioned
from being majority Nordic to majority Alpine populations around
the 17th century. (See Appendix
I to Part
6, or Chapter
6 "Alpinized Germany" from the full online
version of the book). Stoddard viewed Alpines as being heavily
predisposed towards authoritarianism. As the percentage of Alpines
grew in the German population over time, Stoddard saw a clear
trend towards more authoritarianism in German social and political
institutions. Racial Realities in Europe, published
in 1924, eerily predicted that Germany would fall into the hands
of those strong-willed enough to master her. Many
key elements of Nazi pageantry, to include massed displays of
the stiff-armed salute and the emperor-like Fuhrer dictatorship
concept, were inspired more by the Roman imperial era than the
era of the Roman Republic that preceeded it. Having
said all of this, now I need to compare the Roman Republic with
the Roman Empire. According to Roger Pearson in "The
Fall of Ancient Rome," The Roman Republic was founded
around 509 B.C. principally by members of Nordic-Italic tribes
who had migrated south from northern Europe and formed the core
of the patrician and free farmer classes. Over time they began
to drop class, ethnic, and citizenship barriers towards alien
peoples. An important milestone in this process was the Lex
Licinia that opened high office to local plebes in 367 BC. By
the time Julius Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic for good
when his army crossed
the Rubicon in 49 B.C., and the Empire was officially founded
in 27 B.C., Rome had largely lost its Nordic racial character.
Sociologically, major elements of Roman society were transitioning
away from land-owning Nordic free farmers and towards mixed-race
slave plantations. They were also moving away from self-sufficient
homogeneous tribal villages towards large multi-ethnic urban
centers with swarming masses who were provided state-supported
bread and circuses. As
an aside, it is worth mentioning that the Nordic decline process
was delayed and complicated somewhat by continued "trickle
down genetics" where Nordic and Celtic groups from northern
Europe continually headed south and reinvorgorated Rome with
new blood. One example is ancient Galatia
in present day Turkey, formed by Celts who wandered southeast
from present day France. Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this
work, some Roman legions were nearly 50% comprised of former
German tribesmen. This reminds me of a contemporary American
who noted in a book about his experiences in the French Foreign
Legion, "There is a saying in the Foreign Legion that it
is good down to its last German."Getting
back to Hermann the Cherusci and his Nordic-German tribesmen,
it is worth noting that they fought against this new
type of Roman imperial "sociology" in their decisive
battle of 9 A.D at Teutoberg Forest, not for it . Wall
Street on the Tundra by Michael Lewis, Vanity
Fair, April 2004, describes the privatization of the Icelandic
fishing industry in recent times, an initiative that became
vastly more controversial when it was later applied to banking
and international finance:

...One
way or another, the wealth in Iceland comes from the fish,
and if you want to understand what Icelanders did with their
money you had better understand how they came into it in the
first place....["The
Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource; The Fishery"
(PDF)] was written back in 1954 by H. Scott Gordon, a University
of Indiana economist. It describes the plight of the fisherman—and
seeks to explain “why fishermen are not wealthy, despite
the fact that fishery resources of the sea are the richest
and most indestructible available to man.” The problem
is that, because the fish are everybody’s property,
they are nobody’s property. Anyone can catch as many
fish as they like, so they fish right up to the point where
fishing becomes unprofitable—for everybody. “There
is in the spirit of every fisherman the hope of the ‘lucky
catch,’” wrote Gordon. “As those who know
fishermen well have often testified, they are gamblers and
incurably optimistic.” Fishermen, in other words, are
a lot like American investment bankers. Their overconfidence
leads them to impoverish not just themselves but also their
fishing grounds. Simply limiting the number of fish caught
won’t solve the problem; it will just heighten the competition
for the fish and drive down profits. The goal isn’t
to get fishermen to overspend on more nets or bigger boats.
The goal is to catch the maximum number of fish with minimum
effort. To attain it, you need government intervention. This
insight is what led Iceland to go from being one of the poorest
countries in Europe circa 1900 to being one of the richest
circa 2000. Iceland’s
big change began in the early 1970s, after a couple of years
when the fish catch was terrible. The best fishermen returned
for a second year in a row without their usual haul of cod
and haddock, so the Icelandic government took radical action:
they privatized the fish. Each fisherman was assigned a quota,
based roughly on his historical catches. If you were a big-time
Icelandic fisherman you got this piece of paper that entitled
you to, say, 1 percent of the total catch allowed to be pulled
from Iceland’s waters that season. Before each season
the scientists at the Marine Research Institute would determine
the total number of cod or haddock that could be caught without
damaging the long-term health of the fish population; from
year to year, the numbers of fish you could catch changed.
But your percentage of the annual haul was fixed, and this
piece of paper entitled you to it in perpetuity.Even
better, if you didn’t want to fish you could sell your
quota to someone who did. The quotas thus drifted into the
hands of the people to whom they were of the greatest value,
the best fishermen, who could extract the fish from the sea
with maximum efficiency. You could also take your quota to
the bank and borrow against it, and the bank had no trouble
assigning a dollar value to your share of the cod pulled,
without competition, from the richest cod-fishing grounds
on earth. The fish had not only been privatized, they had
been securitized.It
was horribly unfair: a public resource—all the fish
in the Icelandic sea—was simply turned over to a handful
of lucky Icelanders. Overnight, Iceland had its first billionaires,
and they were all fishermen. But as social policy it was ingenious:
in a single stroke the fish became a source of real, sustainable
wealth rather than shaky sustenance. Fewer people were spending
less effort catching more or less precisely the right number
of fish to maximize the long-term value of Iceland’s
fishing grounds. The new wealth transformed Iceland—and
turned it from the backwater it had been for 1,100 years to
the place that spawned Björk. If Iceland has become famous
for its musicians it’s because Icelanders now have time
to play music, and much else. Iceland’s youth are paid
to study abroad, for instance, and encouraged to cultivate
themselves in all sorts of interesting ways. Since its fishing
policy transformed Iceland, the place has become, in effect,
a machine for turning cod into Ph.D.’s.

This
passage may create an overly simplistic impression for certain
readers that "privatization" automatically translates
into increased prosperity across society. This is not true.
There have been cases in certain countries where natural resources
get "privatized" and only a few get rich while the
rest of society gets impoverished and feels "ripped off."
Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson of the Orthodox
Nationalist talk show has heavily criticized "privatizations"
in Russia under Boris Yeltsin or the George Soros-sponsored
"Orange
Revolution" in Ukraine under Viktor
Yushchenko. To intelligently discuss any privatization program,
one always needs to look under the hood and not only examine
in detail the dynamics of particular industries in question,
but also the real character the key players involved in the
"privatization" process, to include Zionists and government
officials. Under Yeltsin, Zionist oligarchs grabbed control
of major oil resources, looted wealth out of the country, and
corrupted government leaders. Before we can intelligently discuss
the pros and cons of Iceland's privatization of its fishing
industry, we must perform a deeper sociological analysis that
compares Iceland with very different experiences around the
world. On
top of all this, there are many different types of "group
property" as well as many types of "private property."
They all come with their own characteristics and mix of advantages
and disadvantages. A failure to make the right distinctions
can cause one to compare apples to oranges. Please see my continued
discussion of "group property" vs. "private property"
in Appendix
II in Part
6. "The
Author of Revolution, an interview with Einar Már
Gudmundsson," by Jonas Moody, 2008 winter issue of Iceland
Review, 6 Feb 2009 online, explains how positive political
feelings about the privatization of domestic fishing later got
misapplied to international investment banking cabals:

Jonas Moody: We seem to be in the midst
of Iceland’s economic crisis, but where do you see the
beginning of the story? Einar Már Gudmundsson: We can trace
this back to 2002 or thereabouts when the banks are privatized—they’re
essentially put in the hands of certain individuals chosen
by politicians and given free rein. There was a glaring lack
of supervision with no guidelines laid down. These people
were meant to have guaranteed the system themselves, and used
this as justification to give themselves absurdly high salaries.
But then they’re not willing to shoulder the responsibility
when it comes down to it. Instead, they dump it on the nation.
As economist Vilhjálmur Bjarnason says, it was about
20 to 30 people who got themselves into the debt that our
nation of 300,000 now has to bear. JM: But Iceland’s heritage is founded
on egalitarianism—the original Nordic democracy of fishermen
and farmers. What changed in the nation’s mentality
to open the door to these changes?EMG: It has undoubtedly been this policy
of libertarianism, this mentality that creates a religion
out of privatization. The movement has been characterized
by a cult that preaches how the market will prevail and the
invisible hand will deftly control all supply and demand.
JM: And how has this shift in mentality acted
on the nation? EMG: Libertarians have the welfare system
in their sites because they view it as a certain agent of
socialism. Then you have capitalism with its privatizations:
fishing privatized through the quota system, banks privatized
and, most recently, attempts to privatize energy—that’s
certainly something the IMF is looking at, getting their hands
on resources like water and energy, our nature. JM: What was happening in Iceland to usher
in this spirit of libertarianism without greater opposition?
EMG: The labor movement and socialists failed
in their roles. The socialists have adopted the libertarian
rhetoric—talking about market solutions and privatization.
The Social Democrats in Iceland are satisfied with the fishing
quota system and everything else in capitalism. At the same
time the labor movement has become institutionalized—focusing
now on pension funds and administration, instead of fighting
for the people behind the movement. This lack of opposition
has made it easy for libertarianism to take root without any
resistance.

Left:
From "Libertarian
Experiment in Iceland Fails," by Iris Erlingsdottir,
Huffington Post, 9 March 2009, caption: "Mr. Gissurarson,
right, in happier times, with Milton and Rose Friedman at a
Mont Pelerin conference in Tokyo in 1988." Right, Gissurarson
interviewed in an Icelandic
documentary (in Icelandic).Friedman is
a perfect example of "controlled opposition," "limited
hang out," and "false Hegelian Dialectic" that
implicitly accommodates Zionist interests in economic arguments,
to include any debate about abolishing the Jewish-controlled
Federal Reserve Banking system in America. See Chapt.
38 regarding "False Hegelian Dialectic" tactics
and Chapt.
33 for more on America's real financial system
in the Mission of Conscience Trilogy

An
important close associate of Prime Minister Oddsson, University
of Iceland Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, provided intellectual
justifications for a new "international" phase of
Icelandic "privatization" and "libertarianism."
"Iceland’s
Conservatives Try to Rewrite History" by Íris
Erlingsdóttir, Huffington Post, 4 Feb 2009,
observes:

In
2002, Mr. Gissurarson published How Can Iceland Become
the Richest Country in the World?, in which he outlined
the opportunities that Iceland would have as an international
financial center. Oddsson believed that it was the government's
ownership of the banks that was preventing this from happening.
`The crucial factor,' he said in a 2004 speech, `was the iron
grip that the Icelandic state had on all business activity
through its ownership of the commercial banks.'

This
move towards "privatization" involved a much more
exotic cast of characters than the fishing industry make-over.
We see both Oddsson and Gissurarson hobnobbing with Jewish neocon
economists such as Milton Friedman and Zionist front men like
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush during the years leading up
to and immediately following publication of this work. According
to the Wikipedia
article on Oddsson, he belonged to a group who "read
books and articles by and about Milton
Friedman, Friedrich
Hayek and James
M. Buchanan, who all visited Iceland in the early 1980s
and whose messages of limited governments, privatization,
and liberalization of the economy had a wide impact ... During
his almost 14 years as Prime Minister, Davíð became
acquainted with, or friend of, many Western leaders, including
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Václav Klaus and Silvio
Berlusconi.[citation needed] He has occasionally attended the
meetings of the Bilderberg Group, and he has read a paper to
the Mont Pelerin Society."Oddsson's
attendance at Bilderberg raises an immediate red flag, because
it functions as a Rothschild front organization. In his video
documentary ENDGAME:
Blueprint for Global Enslavement, Alex Jones condemns
the Bilderberg conferences by noting that "Under the Logan
Act, it is a felony offense for any member of federal or state
government to meet with members of a foreign government without
the express authority and authorization of the President or
Congress. Put simply, it is illegal for members of the government
to meet secretly behind closed doors with foreign power brokers
due to the problems of corruption and espionage that it breeds.
For this reason, many prominent politicians attend but their
names do not appear on the official list." In
this same documentary, Jim Tucker, editor of the American
Free Press, remarked: "...I've chased Bilderberg
for thirty years. I'll never give up the chase. Bilderberg's
plan for the whole world is nothing less than World Government.
I'm not comfortable with that at all. Who elected these guys
to run the planet? They are the elitists. They feel they can
run the world for their own selfish interests.."Leading
editors of the Washington Post, CBS, Time,
the Wall Street Journal, and other major national media
are regular attendees at Bilderberg conferences. These same
major media controllers are also active members of other secretive
elite organizations such as the Trilateral Commission, Council
on Foreign Relations, and Hosmer Grove. Not
surprisingly, the 27 Dec 2008 Wall Street Journal article:
" The
Isle That Rattled the World" had many nice things to
say about Bilderberg attendee David Oddsson:

Mr.
Oddsson became prime minister in 1991 promising to bring an
end to the country's boom-and-bust cycles tied to the fish
catch. He blamed the trouble on the state-controlled economy,
which put bureaucrats in charge of fishing, the media, even
a travel agency.Within
a few years, Iceland had sold off companies worth a combined
$2 billion, a big sum for the small economy, says Mr. Gissurarson.For
Mr. Oddsson, what most held Iceland back was government control
of banking, which put politicians in the position of determining
how capital should be allocated. "The crucial factor," he
said in a 2004 speech, "was the iron grip that the Icelandic
state had on all business activity through its ownership of
the commercial banks."

Environmental
(leftist)

Genetic
(rightist)

"Y"
axis

Central-
ized
(more
top
down)

"x" axis

Environmental
Centralized
Neo-Jacobinism, "Modern Liberalism," "Liberal
Fascism"
The U.S. Government today
Part of Friedman,
Gissurarson and
Oddsson "neo-con" Ideology

At
this point we need to place the peculiar brand of "libertarianism"
and "privatization" espoused by Oddsson, Gissurarson,
and their Zionist neocon friends like Milton Friedman on the
ideological map to better understand distortions and blind spots.The
biggest problem is that it tends to take a purely "environmental"
view of human nature and assumes that all people can learn to
respect human rights, keep their promises, and engage in rational
profit-seeking in the context of a free market in a way that
will optimize long term gain for everyone, to include the maintenance
of productive social values.In
reality, as I explain in greater detail in my online Reconciling
Opposing Political and Economic Ideologies series, there
are strong ethnic and genetic factors that create wide disparities
between different human groups when it comes to important economic
and political values, to include attitudes towards criminality
(parasitism), centralization (authoritarianism), and environmentalism
(anti-tribalism). On
top of this, a utopian effort to practice pure "anarcho-libertarianism"
can create what game theorists call an "unstable paradigm"
that sews the seeds of its own demise or overthrow. As more
and more people in a society try to live in accordance with
anarcho-libertarian ideals, they tend to become more atomized
as rugged individualists. Paradoxically, this may weaken the
ability of their society as a whole to defend itself from open
attack by an invading army or subversion by highly organized
covert intelligence organizations and criminal mafia. Sometimes
it takes a large, cohesive army to defend against a large invading
force, and the cohesive strength of an organized ethnic group
to resist alien mafia infiltration and takeover.Hence,
I believe that sound economic and political policy must take
all of the perspectives depicted in the table above into account
and understand how they trade off against each other. The
big problem with "environmental" libertarian approaches
is that while they may reduce government regulation and increase
business growth in the short run, in the long run they risk
letting economic control slip into the hands of alien groups
who can ultimately do more harm than good to an overall economic
and political system. The presence of alien peoples can increase
forms of social friction (read: social costs) for the indigenous
population. Aliens can also gain control of strategic bases
over time and undermine indigenous popular sovereignty on many
different levels. Aliens can also use media control to pervert
any kind of healthy popular culture, as we see in innumerable
cases today where Zionist-controlled national media sneer
at traditional American straight white males, promote
hardcore pornography, support Third
World invasion, applaud
"The Death of the West," and push "political
correctness" and "cultural Marxism." Another
important Achilles Heel in the libertarianism promoted by Oddsson,
Gissurarson, and associates is that it was actually a mixture
of "environmental top down" and "environmental
bottom up" viewpoints. "Environmental top down"
ideologies come in many different permutations that include
"liberal fascism," "leftist imperialism,"
"socialism," "neo-Jacobinism," and even
"communism." It is basically the philosophy of runaway
big Federal Government and Big Central Bank in America today.
Oddsson's
ideology had a major "top down" component because
it embraced financial sector expansion both at home and overseas,
as well as central bank interventionism. A central bank is all
about big government or private banker central planning and
subsidy, not libertarianism. Central bank manipulation is form
of monopolistic free market interference, totally contrary to
the libertarian concept of the free market as a vital source
of competitive price information, decentralized economic adjustment,
and grass roots entrepreneurial incentives. The very aggressive
expansion of Icelandic banks into foreign markets through mergers
and acquisitions is a form of financial imperialism and "conquest"
that has nothing to do with building businesses through libertarian
concepts of grass roots entrepreneurial calculation. The
American Old Right brand of libertarianism advocated by Thomas
Jefferson was hostile to the very existence of a central bank,
not to mention government manipulation of currency. Early America
was on a "free money" system in which the creation
of money was kept out of the hands of politicians, and the public
generally preferred forms of money tied to gold and silver.
Early American libertarians felt that the society should focus
the development of science, technology, and industry, and the
production of real goods and services, and if anything the financial
sector should be decentralized to prevent it from becoming "the
tail that wags the dog." This
is analogous to the way Americans have preferred trial by jury
in order to decentralize judicial power out of the hands of
judges and into the hands of the people. Sometimes one must
create forms of regulatory inefficiency in some areas to promote
the greater public good in others. George
Washington once stated
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous
to our liberties than standing armies." There
is an interesting connection between central banks and standing
armies. A central bank can be conceptualized as a "financial
war machine" for funding standing armies. Central banks
typically have the capability to issue fiat money and expand
bank credit --both of which are created out of thin air. This
generates inflation by increasing credit and the money supply.Inflation
is a form of taxation. When central bankers expand money and
credit behind closed doors without effective oversight by elected
government officials --which is the case of the unaudited Federal
Reserve Banking System in America today which has not reported
M3 money supply growth since 2006 -- this is a form of taxation
without representation. Many
politicians and warmongers like to use central banks to finance
war because inflating the currency as a consequence of secret
meetings is an easier way to tax people than taxing them through
an open and honest legislative process of their elected representatives.Thomas
Jefferson once stated: "If the American people ever allow
private banks to control the issue of their currency, first
by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporation
which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property
until their children wake up homeless on the continent their
fathers conquered."In
other words, if someone had published a work such as Professor
Gissurarson's How Can Iceland Become the Richest Country
in the World? in the era of Thomas Jefferson -- except
claiming that America rather than Iceland should become a major
international financial power -- the American Old Right would
have certainly scorned this proposition. America must stay focused
on developing industry, and if anything tightly regulate the
financial sector rather than allow financiers to grant themselves
special privileges through the creation of a central bank. Please
see Chapter
33 of my Mission of Conscience series where I explore
banking and finance issues in the greater depth that they deserve.
This includes the long and disturbing history of banker "false
flag " operations against the American public, as outlined
in the embedded video The Money Masters. This history
includes evidence of assassination efforts run against U.S.
presidents, to include Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and
James Garfield for resistance against the evil schemes of certain
private central bankers. Please
also see my special web page "Reconciling
Libertarianism vs. Nationalism" where I provide
more detailed discussion about ways to balance libertarian principles
against the need of a people to determine their own destiny
by exercising sovereignty rights, controlling the strategic
bases of society, and protecting other vital interests -- a
process commonly known as "nationalism.".